the thing is, that illegal immigrants now get all kind of benefits. If they didn't get anything, no housing, no food, no health care, no money, no help, how many would come do you think? Then you could indeed have open borders. But it all started with bribing people to come (like after WW2 the mine workers in Belgium and later Polish metal workers etc). If they are given nothing at all and have to build up from the ground, things would be very differint IMO. Well, that is what I had to do and I am a legal immigrant.
Exactly. And we talk about that in the episode. I hesitate to call what's happening now "immigration", because it is so much more than that. I've also been an immigrant and those kinds of benefits were not something that was ever available to me, nor did I even consider trying to get them. What's happening here is something very different.
You're both so right. The anarchic libertarian position is no state borders, and is correct. But once we have socialism attracting hordes of people, the government trying to keep them out seems reasonable. But even if 'reasonable', government is the worst method to do anything, including border control.
And the primary problem is the socialism driving the immigration over-influx, so it should be addressed at a higher priority than merely guarding the borders (or forcibly keeping them open, which is what is currently happening, strangely).
You touched on the big aspect for me when you talked about subsidies.
The U.S. doesn't have an open border; it has a *subsidized border*.
And government subsidies interfere with both the natural human right of migration and the natural human right of private property. The problem -- the evil -- is government subsidization, not migrants as such.
We could ask this too: are Conservatives wrong for supporting revolutionary communist savagery that destroys lives and property and undermines civilization such as the current immgration control legislation and its chaotic consequences?
(I realize it's a hugely loaded question, but what the heck, the framing of this debate is already very loaded on the other side)
I concur that the invasion we are witnessing has nothing to do with open borders, and everything to do with a rogue state attacking the citizens in order to maintain power when a rapidly growing number of legitimate Americans oppose them and want them behind bars. But wgat can we do to resist this?
It's a good question. I don't know, but the fact that they aren't deporting them, but sending them on to other US jurisdictions, tells me that they cannot.
Then I don’t see how we can have a state-level solution. Simply shipping them to blue states doesn’t preclude them coming back. Maybe abolishing all welfare in the state would be helpful. That would certainly discourage those unwilling to pay their own way.
Jeffrey Tucker's body language and facial expression scream "I'm making a mistake!" And he is. Yes, the existing response to immigration is an unworkable mess, but more government police state tactics will only make things worse. We're putting immigrants up in luxury hotels, feeding them, and if reports are true, even giving them cash cards loaded with hundreds of dollars. Who wouldn't come to America given such treatment?
The proper response to immigration is for the government to DO NOTHING. Don't house or feed immigrants, or otherwise coddle them. Very quickly, the ones who have come here to sponge will get the message and stay home, while the ones who are here to take crappy, low-wage jobs that Americans turn their dainty noses up at will continue to come. As they should.
Jacob Hornberger spells all this out clearly and convincingly at fff.org. I would encourage JT to immerse himself in those writings; perhaps this will induce him to rectify his mistake.
The problem with open immigration is that it doesn't work. Especially not if your goal is freedom. We simply do not have the capacity to accommodate everyone, and there would be no check on bad actors entering. If we had open borders, then the people who come by and large would vote for the most anti-freedom candidates running. While I grieve for the plight of most of the people of the world, the best solution is to encourage them to stay home and rescue their own nations, and to offer to help them at home.
"Are Libertarians Wrong to Favor Open Immigration?"
Yes.
Rothbard, towards the end, realized you can't have open borders and a welfare system. You need to end the system first, then you can consider opening the border.
Anyone arguing to the contrary is going directly against the reason Libertarianism even exists, and are probably a crypto-Marxist.
the thing is, that illegal immigrants now get all kind of benefits. If they didn't get anything, no housing, no food, no health care, no money, no help, how many would come do you think? Then you could indeed have open borders. But it all started with bribing people to come (like after WW2 the mine workers in Belgium and later Polish metal workers etc). If they are given nothing at all and have to build up from the ground, things would be very differint IMO. Well, that is what I had to do and I am a legal immigrant.
Exactly. And we talk about that in the episode. I hesitate to call what's happening now "immigration", because it is so much more than that. I've also been an immigrant and those kinds of benefits were not something that was ever available to me, nor did I even consider trying to get them. What's happening here is something very different.
You're both so right. The anarchic libertarian position is no state borders, and is correct. But once we have socialism attracting hordes of people, the government trying to keep them out seems reasonable. But even if 'reasonable', government is the worst method to do anything, including border control.
And the primary problem is the socialism driving the immigration over-influx, so it should be addressed at a higher priority than merely guarding the borders (or forcibly keeping them open, which is what is currently happening, strangely).
You touched on the big aspect for me when you talked about subsidies.
The U.S. doesn't have an open border; it has a *subsidized border*.
And government subsidies interfere with both the natural human right of migration and the natural human right of private property. The problem -- the evil -- is government subsidization, not migrants as such.
Yes, absolutely.
We could ask this too: are Conservatives wrong for supporting revolutionary communist savagery that destroys lives and property and undermines civilization such as the current immgration control legislation and its chaotic consequences?
(I realize it's a hugely loaded question, but what the heck, the framing of this debate is already very loaded on the other side)
Or, indeed, supporting federal - as opposed to state - enforcement of immigration itself.
I concur that the invasion we are witnessing has nothing to do with open borders, and everything to do with a rogue state attacking the citizens in order to maintain power when a rapidly growing number of legitimate Americans oppose them and want them behind bars. But wgat can we do to resist this?
I think the state of Texas is showing us the way. Take back local control.
Can Texas legally deport the invaders?
It's a good question. I don't know, but the fact that they aren't deporting them, but sending them on to other US jurisdictions, tells me that they cannot.
Seems secession would be the only remedy.
I mean, I think that's been true for a long time. And not only about this issue.
Then I don’t see how we can have a state-level solution. Simply shipping them to blue states doesn’t preclude them coming back. Maybe abolishing all welfare in the state would be helpful. That would certainly discourage those unwilling to pay their own way.
Jeffrey Tucker's body language and facial expression scream "I'm making a mistake!" And he is. Yes, the existing response to immigration is an unworkable mess, but more government police state tactics will only make things worse. We're putting immigrants up in luxury hotels, feeding them, and if reports are true, even giving them cash cards loaded with hundreds of dollars. Who wouldn't come to America given such treatment?
The proper response to immigration is for the government to DO NOTHING. Don't house or feed immigrants, or otherwise coddle them. Very quickly, the ones who have come here to sponge will get the message and stay home, while the ones who are here to take crappy, low-wage jobs that Americans turn their dainty noses up at will continue to come. As they should.
Jacob Hornberger spells all this out clearly and convincingly at fff.org. I would encourage JT to immerse himself in those writings; perhaps this will induce him to rectify his mistake.
The problem with open immigration is that it doesn't work. Especially not if your goal is freedom. We simply do not have the capacity to accommodate everyone, and there would be no check on bad actors entering. If we had open borders, then the people who come by and large would vote for the most anti-freedom candidates running. While I grieve for the plight of most of the people of the world, the best solution is to encourage them to stay home and rescue their own nations, and to offer to help them at home.
"Are Libertarians Wrong to Favor Open Immigration?"
Yes.
Rothbard, towards the end, realized you can't have open borders and a welfare system. You need to end the system first, then you can consider opening the border.
Anyone arguing to the contrary is going directly against the reason Libertarianism even exists, and are probably a crypto-Marxist.
Are the “Libertarians” American (Constitutional Republic) Libertarians or Globalist (New World Order) Libertarians?
I didn't knhow there were any (genuine) NWO libertarians!
Does seem oxymoronic.